via my Dad.
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Republicans Storm Back in Polls
I remember checking this 2008 Election simulator a couple months ago, and Obama was winning 90+% of the simulations, and I believe as high as 98%. Wow, have times changed. VPs were chosen, conventions were had, and generally, the attacks have gotten more and more slimy. On the Republican side, it looks like something is working. Now Obama is now winning 61% of simulations. Many states that were considered toss ups, like NC, are now "leaning Republican." There are still nearly two months before the election, but Democrats are already panicking. Fundraising is coming up short, while Republicans are going strong.
Anyhow, here is an interesting youtube video looking at John McCain's recent ads:
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Television News - Comedy Central's Take
As far as I can tell, there are a variety of "watchdogs" out there that attempt to hold the media responsible for their mistakes. I think that they have been somewhat successful; however, there is still room for improvement. I think that one example of a major success of these groups has been identifying FoxNews as a conservative network, and then increasing public awareness of this fact. Nowadays, it is fairly common knowledge that FoxNews has a conservative take on the news. Two popular media watchdogs are the Colbert Report and Daily Show.
My favorite parts of the Daily Show and Colbert Report are when they hold people accountable. The shows are similar, so I'll pull an example from the Daily Show. For instance, in this clip (go to the 3:05 mark), FoxNews' Chris Wallace brings up the fact that his employer has just hired Karl Rove. Wallace then asks if Jon Stewart has any questions that he would like to ask him. Stewart replies, "Does lying feel bad?" For the rest of the clip, Jon Steward makes Wallace ends up regretting that he even mentioned Rove. It is clear that Wallace and FoxNews aren't going to ask Rove any tough questions about his dealings with the Valerie Plame scandal or anything else. In my opinion, this is The Daily Show at it's best. It's funny, edgy, and it makes a point.
The shows often have insightful political analysis and dig out the truth when other places are too timid. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the shows are wasting my time. For instance, the recent Colbert-Stewart-Conan O'Brian feud about who made Huckabee was not even very funny. Okay, it was a little funny. But the point was to kill time because they don't have any writers; I didn't feel like I learned anything useful. Filler pieces like that don't do it for me. There's a whole world outside the US that I could be learning about. In general, American news is way to US-centric. I realize Comedy Central's goal is to be funny and not edgy, and I'm not going to hold Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert responsible for my education, but I wish they had found a better way to use the time.
My favorite parts of the Daily Show and Colbert Report are when they hold people accountable. The shows are similar, so I'll pull an example from the Daily Show. For instance, in this clip (go to the 3:05 mark), FoxNews' Chris Wallace brings up the fact that his employer has just hired Karl Rove. Wallace then asks if Jon Stewart has any questions that he would like to ask him. Stewart replies, "Does lying feel bad?" For the rest of the clip, Jon Steward makes Wallace ends up regretting that he even mentioned Rove. It is clear that Wallace and FoxNews aren't going to ask Rove any tough questions about his dealings with the Valerie Plame scandal or anything else. In my opinion, this is The Daily Show at it's best. It's funny, edgy, and it makes a point.
The shows often have insightful political analysis and dig out the truth when other places are too timid. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the shows are wasting my time. For instance, the recent Colbert-Stewart-Conan O'Brian feud about who made Huckabee was not even very funny. Okay, it was a little funny. But the point was to kill time because they don't have any writers; I didn't feel like I learned anything useful. Filler pieces like that don't do it for me. There's a whole world outside the US that I could be learning about. In general, American news is way to US-centric. I realize Comedy Central's goal is to be funny and not edgy, and I'm not going to hold Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert responsible for my education, but I wish they had found a better way to use the time.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The State of Television News
You don't have to look too far to see people bemoaning the state of television news. In particular, I noticed this amazing chart on my dad's blog:
clipped from www.flickr.com
Click here for big, readable version
This pretty much says it all: Tons of commercials, lots of fluff reporting, and not much important news. Interestingly enough, shortly afterward, my dad applied the parental control setting to block the CNN Headline News. I think that the only other channels he blocks are FoxNews and the TV Guide channel.
This graph got me thinking: maybe what we need, in order to improve the quality of television news is some quantitative analysis like this chart. Then we can find out which channels report the most important news most consistently, and hand out some recognition for the highest performers. Once you start keeping score (aka measuring performance, as Gawande would say), people start caring about how well they're doing.
What sort of quantitative analysis of the television news is out there? I've spent some time searching, but haven't found much. I checked some of the electronic journalism awards, like the prestigeous Peabody Award or the Emmy Award. Here's what I found:
Peabody:
"The Award is determined by one criterion – "Excellence.'"
That's pretty ambiguous and doesn't rely on any sort of objective data. Many valuable programs have received them, but it focuses on individual programs rather than networks. What I really care about here is evaluating the networks as a whole.
Emmy Awards:
Again, these awards emphasize individual programs instead of overall network quality. "News and Documentary" Emmy Awards are not considered "Prime Time" Emmy awards, but instead have their own ceremony, the "Annual News & Documentary Awards," and they are broadcast on C-Span, so obviously the whole world is watching.
The website does offer, however, a breakdown of which networks receive the most awards:
clipped from www.emmyonline.org
As you can see, PBS won the most in 2007, a non-commercial network. I have been unable to find much other quantitative information about television news, at least from casual internet searches, though I have not yet looked in scholarly journals. Clearly, from most networks' point of view, what defines success for them is Nielson ratings. High ratings mean more advertising revenue. This means that it is in the networks' interest to put out attention-grabbing programs and news rather than important news. So what is attention grabbing? Often news about Britney Spears and other celebrities, also known as "fluff."
As long as we continue to consume the fluff voraciously, they will keep serving it to us. Given human nature, I'm pretty our interests in celebrities and such isn't going to disappear.
So what can we do to make networks be more useful, educating Americans on important topics? Well, one option is to grade the networks, particularly using quantitative measures. If you could give awards for "Most focus on news," "The Least Fluff," and "The Fewest Commercials," you might be able affect viewership to some degree, which would affect ratings. Even if you can't effect any real change right away, I think that simply having information out there about the quality of different networks would be of interest to consumers. Right now, for instance, I have no idea which networks have the most news, least fluff, and fewest commercials, but I'd be more likely to watch one that fit those criteria.
Part of the problem now is that no one really knows these things, so every network claims to be the best, most trusted, etc. No one can really argue since, apparently, nobody knows the truth.
I'll write more about this topic and media accountability in the future, in particular, comparing this grading system idea to what other watchdog groups do, such as Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, and even the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
clipped from www.flickr.com
 |
Click here for big, readable version
This pretty much says it all: Tons of commercials, lots of fluff reporting, and not much important news. Interestingly enough, shortly afterward, my dad applied the parental control setting to block the CNN Headline News. I think that the only other channels he blocks are FoxNews and the TV Guide channel.
This graph got me thinking: maybe what we need, in order to improve the quality of television news is some quantitative analysis like this chart. Then we can find out which channels report the most important news most consistently, and hand out some recognition for the highest performers. Once you start keeping score (aka measuring performance, as Gawande would say), people start caring about how well they're doing.
What sort of quantitative analysis of the television news is out there? I've spent some time searching, but haven't found much. I checked some of the electronic journalism awards, like the prestigeous Peabody Award or the Emmy Award. Here's what I found:
Peabody:
"The Award is determined by one criterion – "Excellence.'"
That's pretty ambiguous and doesn't rely on any sort of objective data. Many valuable programs have received them, but it focuses on individual programs rather than networks. What I really care about here is evaluating the networks as a whole.
Emmy Awards:
Again, these awards emphasize individual programs instead of overall network quality. "News and Documentary" Emmy Awards are not considered "Prime Time" Emmy awards, but instead have their own ceremony, the "Annual News & Documentary Awards," and they are broadcast on C-Span, so obviously the whole world is watching.
The website does offer, however, a breakdown of which networks receive the most awards:
clipped from www.emmyonline.orgThe numerical breakdown by award recipients, by broadcast, cable and broadband entities, as compiled by the independent accountancy firm of Lutz & Carr LLP, follows:
PBS
9
freep.com (Detroit Free Press)
1
CBS
5
mediastorm.org
1
Discovery Channel
3
National Geographic
1
NBC
3
pbs.org/frontlineworld
1
HBO/Cinemax
2
sfgate.com (San Francisco Chronicle)
1
ABC
1
VH1
1
CNN
1
WE tv
1
Documentary Channel
1
 |
As you can see, PBS won the most in 2007, a non-commercial network. I have been unable to find much other quantitative information about television news, at least from casual internet searches, though I have not yet looked in scholarly journals. Clearly, from most networks' point of view, what defines success for them is Nielson ratings. High ratings mean more advertising revenue. This means that it is in the networks' interest to put out attention-grabbing programs and news rather than important news. So what is attention grabbing? Often news about Britney Spears and other celebrities, also known as "fluff."
As long as we continue to consume the fluff voraciously, they will keep serving it to us. Given human nature, I'm pretty our interests in celebrities and such isn't going to disappear.
So what can we do to make networks be more useful, educating Americans on important topics? Well, one option is to grade the networks, particularly using quantitative measures. If you could give awards for "Most focus on news," "The Least Fluff," and "The Fewest Commercials," you might be able affect viewership to some degree, which would affect ratings. Even if you can't effect any real change right away, I think that simply having information out there about the quality of different networks would be of interest to consumers. Right now, for instance, I have no idea which networks have the most news, least fluff, and fewest commercials, but I'd be more likely to watch one that fit those criteria.
Part of the problem now is that no one really knows these things, so every network claims to be the best, most trusted, etc. No one can really argue since, apparently, nobody knows the truth.
I'll write more about this topic and media accountability in the future, in particular, comparing this grading system idea to what other watchdog groups do, such as Media Matters and Crooks and Liars, and even the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
